It’s been a tense run-up to this year’s Eurovision Song Contest, everyone’s favorite night of glitz, glamour and novelty trampolines. Russia’s proposed act, Julia Samoylova, fell foul of a Ukrainian travel ban because she’d visited occupied Crimea, causing her country to withdraw from the contest, rather than send another act or have her perform via satellite.

It’s not the first time things have gotten political — far from it. Eurovision has always been as much about geopolitical drama as it has been about music. That’s what keeps linguists, diplomats and political junkies as glued to their television sets as fans of treacly pop. “Given the several crises that are going on in the world today, this contest feels especially political,” said Dean Vuletic of the University of Vienna, a historian of contemporary Europe who specializes in Eurovision. “But when you look back it is really is not anything new. States have always used the song contest in their cultural diplomacy.”

In that spirit, here are 13 times the world’s biggest television event (OK, aside from the Olympics) got seriously interesting.

1. Taking offense

This year’s Russian no-show didn’t come out of the blue. The crises in Crimea and eastern Ukraine have been playing out in parallel at Eurovision. Last year, Ukraine narrowly defeated Russia (and Australia) with Jamala’s “1944.” The contest’s rules ban “lyrics, speeches, gestures of a political or similar nature,” but the song was about Stalin’s enforced wartime deportation of Tatar people to barren Central Asia and started with “When strangers are coming … They come to your house / They kill you all and say / We’re not guilty, not guilty.”

Russia had thrown vast amounts of talent and money at Sergey Lazarev’s extravagant special effects number, and felt robbed. Kremlin officials and lawmakers slammed the voting system and claimed there was an “information war” against the country. Alexey Pushkov, head of the State Duma foreign affairs committee, said on Twitter that Eurovision had “turned into a field for political battles.” “Lazarev is our winner” began trending on Russian Twitter.

It wasn’t Ukraine’s first foray into political territory. In 2004, Ruslana won with “Wild Dances,” a fabulously fierce performance that helped the state forge its post-Soviet national identity by recalling Hutsul folklore. Then there was 2007’s multilingual drag performance by Verka Serduchka — an act which felt very “End of History.”

This time Ukraine chose a perfectly inoffensive rock song. But its singers said they are “fighting for our dream and independence, as well as our country.” This bodes well for political viewers. “Without a doubt, there are going to be a lot of political interpretations of the contest,” said Vuletic.

2. The Conchita Effect

It’s been two years since the bearded Austrian drag queen Conchita Wurst swept to victory; almost 20 since a transsexual woman named Dana International clinched the deal for Israel. And Luxembourg’s Jean-Claude Pascal’s 1961 winner “Nous les amoureux” is recognized by Eurovision aficionados as a song for gay liberation.

Rainbow flags still make up a healthy proportion of those waved by the audience, and some host nations see the contest as a great excuse to celebrate LGBT rights more generally — including Vienna, which instituted same-sex couple traffic lights for the contest. “The aspiration to overcome differences has been a key part of the contest and is more relevant now than ever,” said Dave Goodman, senior communications officer at the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which produces the contest. The network is “proud” not only of Eurovision’s “musical achievements” but also its promotion of “diversity” and “cultural insight and understanding,” he said.

Dana International of Israel peforms at the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 | Sean Gallup/Getty Images

That commitment to diversity may pose a challenge for this year’s host. When Ben Goodwin, the author of travel blog “Railways and Randomness” and a committed Eurovision fan, traveled to Ukraine with his partner last year, the pair were discreet about their relationship. “I got the feeling from our experience that, rather than homophobia, certain people in Ukraine just cannot comprehend the idea of LGBT individuals,” he said. “For those going over for Eurovision from the LGBT community, their visibility may not be met with open arms.”

The contest’s renown as an LGBT event isn’t without controversy. In 2013, Turkish media didn’t broadcast the competition — allegedly because of the lesbian kiss that served as the climax of Kristia Siegfrid’s “Marry Me.” Even Conchita’s victory was controversial. “Even before the contest began, radical groups in Russia, Belarus and Azerbaijan vocally campaigned to deny her entry. A similar petition also appeared in her native Austria, though with a meager 40,000 signatures,” according to Roch Dunin-Wąsowicz, writing for the London School of Economics’ European politics and policy blog, EUROPP.

3. Soft power

The EBU is an organization of broadcasters, not governments. But that doesn’t stop certain countries — especially those where state broadcasters are subject to strong government influence — from using it as a tool for soft power. “The Franco regime in Spain in the 1960s really put a lot into winning Eurovision for Spain, which it used as a way of affirming its belonging to Western Europe at a time when Western European governments were still keeping a distance from this right-wing dictatorship,” said Vuletic.

When Madrid finally got to host the contest in 1969, it was one of the most extravagant, dramatic editions ever seen. The stage featured a sculpture designed by Salvador Dali.

Austria voiced its disapproval of the government by withdrawing, and there was an unprecedented four-way tie for victory between France, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. With no rule in place to resolve this, all four countries got a medal. The controversy caused several countries to refuse to compete in Amsterdam the following year after the Netherlands was chosen as a host by the drawing of lots.

The contest now has rules for such an eventuality. If there’s a tie in Kiev, the song with the highest rank from public votes (rather than the juries) will prevail. If it’s still a tie, the song which got points from the most individual countries will win. And if it’s still tied, the one with the most allocations of 12 points wins.

4. Free from the ‘Soviet Empire’

When Estonia won the contest in 2001, the first post-Soviet nation to do so, it also seized the opportunity to revamp its image as a nation. “The Estonian case is an interesting example of the ‘return to Europe’ and the othering of the Soviet occupation,” said Dr. Paul Jordan, an academic better known as Dr. Eurovision. “It was the opportunity for them to control their image for the first time since independence, and they pushed the concept of ‘Nordic with a twist,’” keen to throw off memories of the USSR.

As Jordan explains in his book, “The Modern Fairy Tale: Nation Branding, National Identity and the Eurovision Song Contest in Estonia,” the country’s citizens were familiar with Eurovision because they could capture Finnish TV signal and they had been hungry for success since they started participating in 1994. “We freed ourselves from the Soviet Empire through song,” then Prime Minister Mart Laar told crowds after the country’s victory. “Now we will sing our way into Europe,” he added, referring ongoing EU accession talks.

5. Swedish domination

This year’s theme may be “Celebrating Diversity,” but Eurovision is vulnerable to criticism on the diversity of its musical selection itself. Sweden, a six-time winner, has a dominant market position and is crushing the global pop scene like the Vikings ruled Danelaw centuries ago. Following the Swedish recipe, contestants often hedge their bets with a catchy pop song — or they get a Swede to write one.

A quarter of all Eurovision songs last year had a “Swedish element,” according to Radio Sweden. For the interval act, Justin Timberlake premiered “Can’t Stop the Feeling,” co-written by Swedes Max Martin and Shellback. (Martin also wrote Britney Spears’ “…Baby One More Time”). The Swedish composer Thomas G:son has written 69 songs for the national finals of 12 different countries. This year, the countries that have received the Swedish touch include Switzerland, Azerbaijan, Croatia and well, Sweden.

6. Blitz and bling

Azerbaijan won in 2011 (with the help of a Swedish songwriter, naturally) and then went on to host the most expensive contest in Eurovision history. At President Ilham Aliyev’s behest, Baku shelled out for a 23,000-seat hall resembling a ring of diamonds set atop the Caspian Sea, as well as a fleet of more than 1,000 London-style taxis painted deep purple. Hosting the contest has never been cheap; Ireland basically had to stop winning, as it was getting so expensive to hold it repeatedly. But since the Azerbaijani extravaganza, broadcasters have tended to pursue a (slightly) “less is more” approach, showcasing green credentials rather than bling.

7. Don’t mention genocide

In 2015, Armenia used Eurovision to mark the centennial of the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians in the final days of the Ottoman Empire — an event recognized as genocide by many in Europe, but not by the country’s neighbors Turkey and Azerbaijan — by sending Genealogy, a group made up of Armenians from across five continents, into the fray with their song “Face the Shadow.”

The song’s chorus — “Don’t deny/ Ever don’t deny/ Listen don’t deny (I don’t want to deny)/ You and I” — may have been a hit among those looking for recognition of the suffering of Armenians, but it did less well among the judges. The country’s 2010 pick, “Apricot Stone,” dealt with the same topic and received a similar reception.

This year, Armenia left politics behind. Instead, it will send Artsvik — a Kardashianesque singer-songwriter, whose song “Fly With Me” — “Love, love is one / Fly with me high oh high, with me high oh high / Never stop believing that love will take us high” — is a popular choice with bookmakers.

8. Russian disco

Beware of trying to skirt Eurovision rules. A “Reference Group” oversees the contest and has come down hard in the face of regulatory breaches. When the group deemed the Georgian delegation had waded too deeply into politics with their catchy “Put In Disco” in 2009, the country was disqualified from the race. The refrain “We don’t wanna put in,” sounded a lot like “We don’t want Putin,” and reference to a “negative move” that was “killing the groove” seemed like an obvious dig at Russia’s 2008 invasion of South Ossetia, the group found, putting a chill on the nifty little disco tune.

9. Linguistics

The question of what language to sing in has animated many a Eurovision pub discussion. ABBA, of course, performed in English. But linguistically-minded Eurovision fans will rhapsodize about the sweet sounds of Spanish. The contest’s decision to abolish its language requirements in 1999 means the scene has been dominated if not by English then something close to it. Check out San Marino’s 2012 entry, “Facebook Uh Uh Oh,” as sung by Valentina Monetta. Here’s a typical verse:

Do you wanna be more than just a friend?Do you wanna play cybersex again?If you wanna come to my houseThen click me with your mouse

Facebook, uh oh oh…Everybody loves you so

Countries have been criticized for “sending a commercial act” rather than “something representing their national cultures,” according to Vuletic. And for reinforcing the dominance of English-language music on the international market. Spain, for example, competed with an English-language song last year, despite the fact that appetite for Spanish-language music is huge worldwide.

10. Belgium’s surrealism

Everything in Belgium is affected by the language question, and Eurovision is no exception. A competitor since the contest’s very first edition in 1956, Belgium has had to walk its usual linguistic tightrope here too, alternating the choice of artists from Flemish and Francophone broadcasters every year. As you’d expect from the home of surrealism, the Belgians have side-stepped this issue on more than one occasion by using a song in a made-up language.

The only time the country won, it subsequently turned out their singer, Sandra Kim, was too young to participate. Though second-placed Switzerland appealed the decision, Belgium’s victory was allowed to stand. They haven’t stopped trying to repeat the feat, or changed tactics. This year, their contestant, Blanche, is just 17.

11. Vote early, vote often

Every year, somebody, somewhere, has a whinge about this. Sir Terry Wogan, the late commentator whose sardonic analysis was synonymous with Eurovision among British viewers, was known to lament the political nature of the contest and feared eternal Balkan bloc voting. (He was wrong.) Jury votes were reintroduced in 2009 to counteract the phenomenon of friendly neighbors and enthusiastic diasporas. Now, the final result depends on both the jury’s view and that of the public, who phone and text in their votes. Until recently, the jury and public votes were combined when announced.

The late Terry Wogan was synonymous with Eurovision in the U.K. | Leon Neal/AFP via Getty Images

In 2016, the system underwent its biggest change in years. First, each country calls in to announce their allocation of votes from the juries. Right at the end, and only then, the public’s televotes are factored in, meaning there’s an X-Factor style big-reveal moment.“This new way of presenting the votes is a big step forward, both to make a better television show as well as a more exciting competition,” Jon Ola Sand, Eurovision’s executive supervisor, said when the changes were announced last year.

Do things still get political? Yes. Will we ever see the like of Poland 2014’s busty milkmaids, who were loved by the public but got two thumbs down from juries across Europe again? Prawdopodobnie nie.

12. Competition

Turkey hasn’t competed in Eurovision since 2012, and national broadcaster TRT has said it won’t return anytime soon — citing, fittingly, unhappiness with the voting system. Given that EU accession talks are basically dead in the water and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s increasing authoritarianism, Turkey turning its back on the song contest fits into a broader move away from Europe.

But turning your back on Eurovision is one thing, it’s another thing to create a whole new contest entirely, as commercial Turkish music channel TMB did with “Turkvision” in 2013. This year’s edition will be held in Astana, Kazakhstan and draw competitors from Bashkortostan, Crimea and Stavropol Krai, among others.

13. Brexit

A search for “Eurovision Brexit” yields half a million results, but British viewers need not worry — it only means that the U.K. is as clueless about this aspect of leaving the bloc as it is about everything else. The European Broadcasting Union is a completely separate organization from the EU, and as long as the BBC remains a member, the country can keep competing. Given that Australia is competing for the third time this year, geography is certainly no barrier.

Preparations are well underway in Kiev, with acts already rehearsing ahead of the big event. Italy is a runaway favorite with “Occidentali’s Karma” (“Westerner’s Karma”), a sort of dance-pop tune about mindfulness, Shakespeare and AAA ratings. Francesco Gabbani is easy on the eye, and the song has had more than 100 million YouTube views. Challengers include Bulgaria, Portugal, Belgium and, of course, Sweden.

Related stories on these topics:

Gareth Cooke

Sir Terry Wogan is really missed and his commentary was 2nd to none his aspects of euro vision were wonderful his comments on the Belgium headbanger were priceless and when was that 1981 i think

Posted on 5/3/17 | 4:41 AM CEST

Roberto

“like an obvious dig at Russia’s 2008 invasion of South Ossetia” I suppose the writer likes to refer to Hitler’s invasion of Liebenstraum and Future Germania,” instead of Poland. Russia invaded Georgia with its troops reaching Poti and locations farther inland than just the territory Russia alone recognizes as independent Ossetia. The author’s awkward sentence seems to suggest we should just do everything possible to keep the militant invaders happy with us.